Agenda item

Ms L Pickles remained in the meeting for this session and answered questions from the Select Committee.

1.            The Chairman welcomed Mr Gough and Mrs Prendergast and asked them for an overview of the Pupil Premium, the main aims of the Kent Strategy for Vulnerable Learners and their views on the direction and work of the Select Committee. 

2.            Mrs Prendergast said her aims in requesting that the Scrutiny Committee support the establishment of this Select Committee had been clear, and there were two areas on which she thought the Select Committee should focus – Free School Meals and Early Years Pupil Premium. Her reasons for identifying these two areas were as follows:

3.            Free School Meals was used as a tool to identify children who would be eligible for Pupil Premium. However, this was not a precise measure as only those registered for Free School Meals were counted, and there were potentially many more who were eligible but had not registered and hence were not counted. It had been estimated that, nationally, some 14% of pupils (approx. 200,000 pupils) eligible to receive Free School Meals were not claiming them. Many factors would affect a pupil’s eligibility for Free School Meals, and other vulnerable learners, eg those affected by domestic violence, would not show up as part of this cohort.  Eligibility for Free School Meals was highest at the younger and older ends of the spectrum, but it wasestimated that, in Kent, 21% of eligible 4-year-olds and 22% of eligible 15-year-olds did not claim, so a large portion of Kent’s eligible pupils simply did not show up in the figures. The highest figures for eligibility were often in the more affluent areas of the county. A Bill in Parliament in 2016 had sought to introduce auto-enrolment for Free School Meals but had not been pursued due to data collection issues. Data on Universal Credit should be easier to collate but there was no trigger in Universal Credit to identify vulnerable learners. 

4.            For Early Years Pupil Premium, Kent scored highly against its statistical peers.  However, there was a clear attainment gap between those claiming and not claiming Early Years Pupil Premium and this gap widened from primary school level onwards.  The Select Committee had an opportunity to make a recommendation about Early Years Pupil Premium which would contribute to closing the attainment gap. There were approx. 1,400 pupils aged 4 – 5 who were eligible for Early Years Pupil Premium, and Kent’s Early Years Pupil Premium funding was some £400,000 or £302 per eligible pupil. The Select Committee could question the sufficiency of these sums and ask if pupils might require additional funding at some stages of their schooling. Mrs Prendergast said that, in her opinion, there was need for radical change and redistribution of Early Years Pupil Premium funding.

5.         Mrs Prendergast and Mr Gough responded to comments and questions, including the following:

a)    concern was expressed that there may have been no progress since 2012, when the information about eligibility for Pupil Premium in the briefing pack (published with the Select Committee agenda) had been collated;

b)    in response to a question, Mr Gough said that he hoped that a family’s eligibility for Pupil Premium would not be affected by a claim for Universal Credit but said there were technical issues to be overcome.  When Universal Infant Free School Meals had been introduced in 2014, there had been many questions to be addressed which would affect take-up. Data had shown that applications for Free School Meals had declined, and some schools had reported that Universal Credit had had an effect on the take-up of Free School Meals. It was known that take-up of Free School Meals had declined at all key stages. Ms Pickles added that schools had reported that the impact of parents not having applied for Free School Meals at KS1 would be felt later in a pupil’s schooling;

c)    a question arose about how often parents would need to re-apply for Free School Meals and it was agreed that the Select Committee would need to be given information about how parents would apply for these, how often they would need to renew their application through their child’s schooling, the criteria by which applications were assessed and whether or not Free School Meals could start or end part-way through a child’s schooling; and

d)    a question was then asked about the effect that a claim for Universal Credit would have on a family’s eligibility for Free School Meals and it was agreed that this was also something about which the Select Committee would need to have information. The Chairman confirmed that a briefing covering these points would be prepared.

6.         Mr Gough summarised what was currently known about the effect of Pupil Premium, nationally and locally, and how the Select Committee might approach this. There was much data and evidence being collected by a range of different bodies, including government departments and government-appointed committees, and keeping track of this was a challenge. The Kent Strategy for Vulnerable Learnershad set out a coherent approach and the next step would be to work out how best to apply this in practice. Much resource had been put into delivering Pupil Premium, which had had some beneficial effect but left some gaps.  Major changes to KS2 in 2016 had further hindered the consistent measurement of the effect of Pupil Premium. Attainment in Kent had generally been good but the gaps which did exist had proven to be very stubborn. For Early Years Pupil Premium, Kent’s take-up was generally better and its gap smaller than those of its peer South East authorities. However, at KS4, Kent’s performance was below that of its peer authorities and the gap widened dramatically, although relative deterioration in take-up tended to take place throughout primary as well as in secondary school. A range of research had been undertaken into how best to improve take-up and this had produced a consistent message that good leadership by school governors and senior leaders was important.  In addition, good staff training could support impact. For example, teaching assistants working with pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) must be properly trained and could provide a valuable extra resource, if used properly and the same also applied to pupils with Pupil Premium. Also important were good family engagement, with clear strategies of how this could be achieved, good evidence of what worked and what didn’t and constant reviewing of data, including that drawn from initiatives such as Headstart and the Children’s Emotional Health and Wellbeing Service.  In schools where Pupil Premium and narrowing the gap were not viewed as being a shared challenge – ‘everybody’s business’ – outcomes were generally not as positive. In summary, improving outcomes was a combination of gathering and examining all available data and working with schools to see how well evidence and knowledge were being applied and what barriers there were to spreading good practice. 

7.         Mr Gough and Mrs Prendergast responded to comments and questions, including the following:

a)    asked if, as the current Kent Strategy for Vulnerable Learners covered the period from 2016 – 2019, it was perhaps too soon to try to assess how well it was being put into practice, Mr Gough explained that the Strategy was currently being reviewed to see how closely it reflected the latest research. Inconsistences in practice were a national rather than a local issue, and, while there had been progress, this was patchy and incomplete;

b)    asked what was the next step to improve the Kent Strategy for Vulnerable Learners, Mrs Prendergast suggested identifying examples of best practice and sharing them with schools. The County Council was in a good position to do that as it had a good relationship with schools via its Area Education Officers.  A comment was made that this was surely already being done, as the toolkit being used had arisen from work being done in schools and between schools. The toolkit was supplied free of charge to Kent schools but any non-Kent school wishing to use it could be charged;

c)    this view was supported and it was suggested that the Select Committee could recommend that all schools use the toolkit.  However, the Select Committee would need to be clear of its scope as some of the issues listed above would be beyond its terms of reference.  Because the County Council was not a recipient of Pupil Premium money, and hence had no direct control over how it was spent, it could only make recommendations and seek to influence how schools spent their Pupil Premium;

d)    Mr Gough added that some schools would take a broader or more radical approach to how they used their Pupil Premium, would look at where it might be possible for them to influence activity at the edges of school life and how school activity could tie-in to activity outside school. Ms Pickles added that relationships beyond school, between professionals working with Early Help and Family Support services and Universal Credit could help with spreading best practice, but finding a best way to achieve this would be a challenge for schools. Asked how it might be possible to evidence the impact of other organisations’ work upon Pupil Premium, Mr Gough explained that examples of this could be found;

e)    asked how links between different areas of activity would show up, for example, how young people’s attendance at a youth centre outside school could be identified and linked to their use of Pupil Premium within school, Ms Pickles explained that existing multi-agency working between professionals in youth services and in schools would make these links, either formally or informally;

f)     asked if Pupil Premium could be used to purchase speech and language therapy, Ms Pickles confirmed that this was possible. Pupil Premium would need to be used creatively to make best overall use of it in hard financial times. Asked what restrictions there were upon the use of Pupil Premium, Ms Pickles said that schools could and would use it how they saw fit, to meet the needs of individual pupils, but would need to be able to demonstrate to Ofsted what benefit had been gained. Schools were very creative and innovative about how they used Pupil Premium to meet these ends, and some schools did use Pupil Premium for speech and language therapy.  Use of speech and language therapy tended to reduce after KS3 and would have differing degrees of priority at different stages of a pupil’s school career; 

g)    the Select Committee discussed if and how it could approach issues which were beyond its terms of reference, and if some areas of work which it wished to cover but may not have time to could be undertaken by a separate group, for example a task and finish group.  The Select Committee was advised by the Research Officer and the Democratic Services Officer that it could indeed identify future work and include in its recommendations that this work be undertaken as part of a separate project;

h)   a view was expressed that all the evidence required may well prove to be already available and what the Select Committee needed to do was identify and collate it and find a way of sharing it between schools, to spread best practice; and

i)     asked if it would be possible to compare Kent’s level of Free School Meals with that of other local authorities which used the selective school system, eg Buckinghamshire and Northern Ireland, Mr Gough replied that in Buckinghamshire, pupils claiming Free School Meals did well but that the attainment gap between Free School Meals and non-Free School Meals pupils was wider than in Kent. In Hampshire, which was comparable in size to Kent but non-selective, performance was worse than in Kent. Members asked to be supplied with comparison figures for these other authorities.   

8.         The Chairman thanked Mr Gough and Mrs Prendergast for attending to help the Select Committee with its information gathering.